IJASRT in EESs, 2013: 3(4)
Available online on: www.ijasrt.com
Technical Knowledge and Information Gaps among
Smallholder Farmers in the Production of Sugarcane in
Kakamega County, Kenya
The purpose of the study was to identify and document technical knowledge and information gaps
that can inform development of appropriate training programs for cane farmers. The study employed a
survey research design; involving 105 small scale farmers in selected from eight Sub-counties of
Kakamega County. Data was analyzed using both descriptive and inferential statistics. Pearson’s
product moment correlation coefficient was used to test for significance of relationships between access
to information regarding cane production and the productivity of the crop. The results show that there
was a strong positive correlation (r =0.722) between the firm size and the acreage under cane crop. The
technical knowledge and information gaps varied on the basis of growth stages of the cane crop; 60% of
the small scale farmers did not prepare land at the right time, 48% of the farmers did not know how to
propagate cane, 34% did not know the cane planting spacing, 48% cultivated uncertified materials due
to lack of capital and poor access to the suitable materials as the reasons. Majority of the farmers (92%)
confirmed that they knew how to gap, although a few (8%) didn’t, 48% did not remove tillers from
their crop, the number of times that the crop was weeded ranged from once (2%) to 8 times (2%), and
64% of the farmers applied organic manure while 87% applied inorganic fertilizers. The results show
that majority of the smallholder farmers were unable to apply the recommended crop management
practices due to lack of capital and lack knowledge and skills. For instance 38% of the respondents were
unable to practice crop rotation due to lack of practical skills. Access to agricultural information
regarding cane crop agronomy was rated as low by most of the respondents (58%).There was a positive
correlation between access to knowledge and productivity of cane crop with a coefficient of 0.283. The
productivity of sugarcane crop in Kakamega County was low and this was contributed by among other
factors; lack of capital and inadequate knowledge and skills regarding the crop’s agronomy. The study
recommends that strategies should be designed to disseminate practices that require technical
knowledge and skills.
Key words: Knowledge &Information Gaps, Smallholder Farmers, Sugarcane Production, information
dissemination
1. Introduction
The sugar industry plays a significant role in
Kenya’s economy, contributing about 15 percent to
the country’s agricultural GDP (KSI, 2009). The
sector consists of more than 250,000 smallholder
farmers, who supply over 92% of the sugar cane
processed by sugar companies while the remainder is
supplied by factory owned nucleus estates (KSI,
2009; KSB, 2010). An estimated 25 percent of the
country’s population depends directly or indirectly on
the sugar industry for their livelihood (Odenya et al.
2007). Kenya’s annual sugar production ranges from
450,000 to 550,000 tons of sugar. This does not meet
the country’s annual demand of 760,000 tones
necessitating importation of sugar (MSC, 2008).
Increased regional trade and the opening up of
borders to allow sugar imports from both the East
African Community and the Common Market for
Eastern and Southern Africa (COMESA) have hurt
Kenyan sugar producers. In July 2008, the Kenyan
government cancelled the licenses of all its 55 sugar
importers citing miss-use of import licenses, tax
evasion and that imports were hurting local farmers
(Odenya et al, 2007).
There has been a decline in cane production
per given unit area and hence an increase in poverty
for approximately 6 million people who depend on
sugarcane farming either directly or indirectly (KSB,
2008). The sugarcane yield in Kenya stands at 65tons
of cane per hectare, which is way below the potential
yield of 100 tons of cane per hectare under rain-fed
conditions (KESREF, 2009). Potential reasons for
Received: 19 October 2013,
Reviewed: 27 October 2013,
Revised: 25 November 2013,
Accepted: 20 December 2013
Gilbert Odilla Abura1, Raphael Mwiti Gikunda1 and Godffrey NyongesaNato2
Department of Education, Chuka University, P.O Box 109 – 60400, Chuka, [email protected] and
[email protected]
2
Technical University of Mombasa, P.O Box 90420 – 80100, Mombasa, [email protected]
Abstract
1
200
Technical Knowledge and Information Gaps among Smallholder Farmers
this reduction in productivity include the widespread
use of low quality sugar cane varieties, poor
agricultural and land management practices and
delayed harvesting of mature sugarcane (KSB, 2010).
Moreover, most farmers grow cane varieties that are
susceptible to the major diseases such as smut,
mosaic and ratoon stunting disease. These factors
coupled with poor crop management practices leads
to low yields.
In view of the complex nature of the smallscale production systems most cost effective
technological intervention to increase sugarcane
productivity in Kenya is cultivation of improved
varieties and appropriate crop management practices.
Although, there has been continuous dissemination of
sugarcane production knowledge by both public and
sugar company’s extensionists, some small scale
farmers do not access the right knowledge and skills
needed to address the farm specific problems that
they encounter in their farms. This paper is the
outcome of a farmer survey undertaken to contribute
towards the understanding of the gaps and
information needs among smallholder farmers in the
sugar industry in the country.
2. Materials and methods
Study Area:
Kakamega County borders the following
Counties: Bungoma to the North and North West,
Uasin Gishu to the North East and East, Nandi to the
South East, Vihiga to the South, Siaya to the South
West and Busia to the West. The County is classified
as moist mid-altitude zone (MM) (Lynam and
Hassan, 1998). The MM zone forms a belt around
Lake Victoria, from its shores at an altitude of 1110
meters, up to an altitude of about 1500 meters above
sea level. These zones largely follow an altitude
gradient, with higher elevation areas receiving more
rainfall. Kakamega County is largely comprised of
the Lower Highland (LH), Upper Highland (UH),
Lower Midland (LM) and Upper Midland (UM)
Agro-ecological zones (AEZ). Jaetzold and Schimdt
(1982) divided the temperature belts of this zone in
sub-categories ranging from humid 1; to less humid
6; and differentiated by altitude, soil type and
fertility, rainfall and the range of crops growing in the
respective areas. According to the FAO (1978)
classification scheme, Kakamega is classified as
humid Forest agro-ecological zone with a length of
growing period.
Study Design and Data Analysis
The study used survey method; involving
105 small scale farmers in selected from eight Subcounties of Kakamega County namely Kakamega
Central, Butere, Malava, Matungu, Navakholo,
Mumias, Lurambi and Lugari. Data for this study was
http://www.ijasrt.com
Gilbert Odilla Abura et al
obtained mainly from primary source collected using
structured questionnaires. The study used stratified
random sampling method to select the smallholder
cane farmers. Robson (1993) tells us that sampling
theory supports stratified randomsampling as an
efficient choice because the means of the stratified
samples are likely tobe closer to the mean of the
population overall. The smallholder farmers were
startified on the basis of Districts (Sub-counties) they
belong to. Then, 15 smallholder cane farmers were
randomly selected from the identified Sub-counties.
The data was analyzed using descriptive and
inferential statistics. Pearson’s product moment
correlation coefficient was used to test for significant
relationship between access to information regarding
cane production and the productivity of the crop.
3. Results and discussion
Farmer and Farm Characteristics:
The study engaged a total of 105
smallholder sugarcane farmers where 66% were male
and 34% were female. Approximately, 7% of the
respondents were aged between 18 and 27 years, 23%
were aged between 28 and 37 years, 33% were aged
between 38 and 47 years, 20% were aged between 48
and 57 years and 18% were aged over 58 years.
Regarding their educational levels; 28% had primary
education, 36% had secondary education, 25% had
college education and 12% had university education.
This shows that majority of the farmers were literate.
Education contributes to general awareness and
exposure of information which should favor the
farmers to adopt improved sugar cane technologies.
Various farm characteristics were assessed
namely; type of land ownership farm size, acreage
under cane crop, annual income and experience in
crop production. A comparison of the characteristics
was done across the Sub-Counties covered by the
study as shown in Table 1.
Regarding the type of land ownership, 10%
had leased land, 28% were cultivating family owned
land and 62% were cultivating their own land. The
mean farm size ranged from 2.0333to 4.5636acres
where Kakamega Central had the lowest mean farm
size while Mumias had the highest mean. Mumias
Sub County (3.12) reported highest mean acreage
under cane crop in acres while Kakamega Central
(0.8827) was the lowest. The highest mean annual
income from sugarcane was reported in Malava Sub
County (107066.67) while farmers in Butere were the
most experienced (14.7 years) with regards to number
of years they have been producing the cane crop.
Relationship between farm size and level
of cane production:
Pearson’s correlation coefficient was run to
establish whether the level of cane cultivation was
Email: [email protected]
2013; 3(4):199-207
IJASRT in EESs, 2013; 3(4)
http://www.ijasrt.com
determined by the size of the farm. The results in
Table 2 show that there is a strong correlation (0.722)
between the firm size and the acreage under cane
crop. The p-value was 0.00 less than the significance
level of 0.01 establishing a significant relationship
between the two variables. This implies that the
bigger the farm size the bigger the acreage under
cane cultivation.
Access to agricultural information on
cane production:
As illustrated in Figure 1, access to
agricultural information regarding cane crop
agronomy was rated as low by most of the
respondents (58%). This implies that most of the
sugarcane small holder farmers in the County did not
access cane crop production information. This means
that most of the farmers had very few or no contact
with extension officers either from the County
Agricultural Office, KESREF (Kenya Sugar Research
Foundation) or from the sugar milling companies; the
institutions that provide extension services to
farmers.
Table 1. Farm Characteristics
Farm size
Mean acreage
(Acres)
under cane
(Acres)
2.3800
1.42
3.8769
1.97
3.0667
1.98
3.0000
1.95
2.0333
0.88
4.5636
3.12
4.1538
1.35
2.3000
1.46
3.1314
1.73
Sub County
Lurambi
Butere
Malava
matungu
Kakamega Central
Mumias
Lugari
Navakholo
Total
Annual mean
income (kshs)
Experience in
cane production
(years)
8.40
14.77
9.00
3.92
12.00
10.27
4.42
8.10
8.91
60000.00
45307.69
107066.67
24692.31
38066.67
63636.36
103076.92
83200.00
65323.81
Table 2. Correlation analysis between farm sizes and level of cane production
Farm size
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Land under sugarcane in
Pearson Correlation
Acres
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
Very lowly accessible
Farm size
1
Land under sugarcane in Acres
0.722**
0.000
105
1
105
0.722**
0.000
105
105
11.7%
Lowly accessible
46.7%
Highly accessible
31.7%
Very highly accessible
10%
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Figure 1. Access to agricultural information regarding cane production
http://www.ijasrt.com
Email: [email protected]
2013; 3(4): 199-207
201
202
Technical Knowledge and Information Gaps among Smallholder Farmers
Knowledge and Information gaps:
The study aimed at unveiling the knowledge
and information gaps that exist at various stages of
cane crop production. The stages covered included
land preparation, propagation, planting, gapping,
weeding, and pest and disease control.
Land Preparation:
For higher sugarcane yields, providing
optimum soil environment is an essential prerequisite since the crop remains in the field for about
5 to 6 years due to the practice of raising several
ratoon crops and this therefore calls for proper and
adequate land preparation. When asked to indicate
the period within which you undertake land
preparation, 5% indicated that they did it a few days
before planting, 2% undertook the practice two weeks
before planting, 40% prepared their land one month
before planting and majority did it two months before
planting as illustrated in Figure 2.
The results further indicated that 84%
cleared the vegetation before ploughing, 44% leveled
the land after ploughing, 55% practiced sub-soiling,
93% undertook ploughing, 88% undertook harrowing
of the land, 84% dug furrows and 73% did land
surveying as presented in Table 3. This shows that
although majority of the smallholder farmers were
undertaking the land preparation practices, challenges
still exist among some farmers towards practicing
recommended land preparation practices.
Propagation:
The results further indicate that 52% of the
respondents knew how to propagate cane while 48%
did not as shown in Table 4. Only 14% of the
respondent knew how to establish cane sett nursery.
This show that some farmers lacked knowledge and
skills in cane propagation and nursery establishment.
Planting:
The study also assessed the cane setts
spacing, source and planting materials used by the
smallholder farmers in the County.
Cane Setts Spacing
The respondents were asked to indicate the
cane setts’ spacing they applied during planting. The
results (Figure 2) shows that majority of the farmers
(66%) used a spacing of 1.2 metres. The results
indicate that the planting spaces ranged from 0.25 to
4 metres. This is a clear indication that most of the
farmers did not know the most appropriate spacing to
use when planting the cane crop. Although there is no
standardized (control) inter-row spacing for
sugarcane seedlings (Olweny&Jamoza, 2008) the
spacing should range between 0.1m to 1.5 to
maximize the yields. According to Verma, (2004),
http://www.ijasrt.com
Gilbert Odilla Abura et al
high density planting reduces the number of tillers
produced per each planting material due to mutual
shading and competition for light, nutrients, and
water. On the other hand, sub-optimal density
planting results in a loss of yield due to inefficient
use of the land space (Azharet al., 2007).
Sources and Kind of Planting Materials
The smallholder farmers got planting
materials from various sources. The main source of
sugarcane seedlings was own farm.KESREF which is
supposed to be the major source (Odenya et al. 2008)
only provided seed cane to 16.7% of the farmers.
About 17% of the respondents sourced planting
materials from milling companies, 27% prepared
cane setts from the crops in their farms and 11% got
planting materials from neighbours as presented in
Table 5. The results further indicate that 52% grew
certified planting materials while 48% cultivated
uncertified materials. Those who grew uncertified
seed cane cited lack of capital and poor access to the
suitable materials as the reasons.
Gapping:
Majority of the respondents (92%)
confirmed that they knew how to gap, although a few
(8%) didn’t as shown in Table 6.
The result (Table 6) also indicates that 78%
knew the right time to gap the cane crop however,
22% did not. Majority of the respondents (52%)
removed tillers from their crop while 48% did not.
This shows that although majority of the respondents
knew when and how to gap, a significant number of
smallholder farmers in the County did not know. It is
advisable to remove water shoots as and when they
arise because water shoots affects the growth of
adjacent stalks. They harbor insect-pests and when
they are harvested and sent to mill for crushing, lead
to reduced juice quality and affect sugar recoveries.
Despite the importance of removing tillers a
significant number of farmers did not undertake the
practice.
Weeding Management:
In sugarcane weeds have been estimated to
cause 12 to 72% reduction in cane yield depending
upon the severity of infestation. As depicted in Figure
3, most of the respondents (23%) weeded their crops
5 times before harvesting. The number of times that
the crop was weeded ranged from once (2%) to 8
times (2%). This shows that most farmers did not
know the recommended number of times (8 times) to
weed the crop, lacked labour or machinery to
undertake the practice. The study found that most of
the farmers (85%) were using manual methods to
control weeds. Other farmers used chemical (10%)
and mechanical (5%).
Email: [email protected]
2013; 3(4):199-207
IJASRT in EESs, 2013; 3(4)
http://www.ijasrt.com
Fertilization:
Sugarcane being a giant crop producing
huge quantity of biomass generally demands higher
amounts of nutrient elements.
The results (Table 7) indicate that 64% of
the respondents applied organic manure while 87%
applied inorganic fertilizers. This means that some
farmers did not apply organic or inorganic fertilizer
to their crops. Further, 82% of the respondents were
applying the right amount of fertilizer while 18%
were not.
soil conservation measures due to lack of capital. In
general majority of the smallholder farmers were
unable to apply the recommended crop management
practices due to lack of capital; however, a significant
number also lacked the required knowledge and
skills. For instance 38% of the respondents were
unable to practice crop rotation due to lack of
practical skills.
Productivity of the Cane Crop in the
County:
An analysis of the productivity of cane crop
in the County revealed that although the its
production levels were low as indicated by majority
of the respondents (63%) as illustrated in Figure 4.
The low production levels had been contributed by
among other factors; lack of capital and inadequate
knowledge and skills regarding the crop’s agronomy.
Pest and diseases:
There is wide spectrum of pests and diseases
that affects cane crop (Table 8) most of which if not
controlled can cause huge losses. The susceptibility
of the variety to the diseases and pests aggravates the
situation and creates additive problems. The most
common pest was termite as indicated by 87% of the
respondents. On the other hand the most common
disease was ratoon stunting disease (73%).
Access to Knowledge and Information
and Productivity of Cane Crop:
The study further assessed the relationship
between access to knowledge and information, and
the productivity of the cane crop. The results in Table
10 indicate that there is a positive correlation between
access to knowledge and productivity of cane crop
with a coefficient of 0.283 which was significant at
alpha level of 0.05. This means that an increase in
farmers’ access to information and skills regarding
cane crop agronomic practices leads to an increase in
the productivity of the crop.
Reasons
for
not
applying
the
Recommended Practices:
The study also investigated the reasons why
some farmers were not applying the recommended
cane crop management practices. According to the
results in Table 9, most of the respondents (42%)
were not practicing mulching due to lack of capital or
labour. Fertilizer/manure application was hindered by
lack of capital as noted by 53%, 53% did not apply
Few days before planting
5%
Two weeks before planting
1.7%
One month before planting
40%
Two months before planting
53.3%
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Figure 2: Land preparation
Table 3. Land preparation activities
Practiced or not
Yes
No
Total
http://www.ijasrt.com
Field
clearing
%
84.5
15.5
100.0
Levelling
%
44.4
55.2
100.0
Ripping
%
55.4
44.6
100.0
Ploughing
Harrowing Furrowing
%
93.2
6.8
100.0
%
88.1
11.1
100.0
Email: [email protected]
%
84.7
15.3
100.0
Land
surveying
%
72.9
27.5
100.0
2013; 3(4): 199-207
203
204
Technical Knowledge and Information Gaps among Smallholder Farmers
Gilbert Odilla Abura et al
66.1%
70
60
50
40
30
20
8.9%
10
8.9%
3.6%
1.8%
3.6%
1.8%
Spacing in metres
3.6%
1.8%
0
0.25
0.75
1.2
1.5
0.75
2.5
3
3.5
4
Figure 3. Planting space
1.7%
8 times
7 Times
6 Times
5 times
4 times
Thrice
twice
once
21.7%
13.3%
23.3%
16.7%
18.3%
3.3%
1.7%
0
10
5
15
20
25
Figure 4. Number of times of cane crop weeding
Activity
Yes
No
Total
Table 4. Knowledge of cane propagation and sett nursery establishment
Know how to propagate cane (%)
Know how to establish cane sett nursery(%)
51.7
14.3
48.3
85.7
100.0
100.0
Table 5. Source and kind of planting material
Source
KESREF
Sugar companies
Own farm
Neighbour
Total
Yes
No
Total
http://www.ijasrt.com
Frequency
10
27
16
7
60
Percent
16.7
25.0
26.7
11.7
100.0
Kind of planting materials
Certified
Uncertified
Total
Table 6. Gapping
Do you know how to gap?
Do you know the right time to
undertake gapping?
Frequency
Percent
Frequency
Percent
55
91.7
47
78.3
5
8.3
13
21.7
60
100.0
60
100.0
Email: [email protected]
Frequency
31
29
60
Percent
51.7
48.3
100.0
Do you remove tillers
(side shoots)?
Frequency
Percent
31
51.7
29
48.3
60
100.0
2013; 3(4):199-207
IJASRT in EESs, 2013; 3(4)
http://www.ijasrt.com
Application of manure
Yes
No
Total
Table 7. Application of manure
Organic manure (%)
63.6
36.4
100.0
Inorganic fertilizers (%)
87.2
12.8
100.0
Table 8. Pests and diseases
Pest and disease
White flies
Termites
Stalk borer
Yellow leaf spot
Nematodes
Ratoon stunting disease
Wilt
Smut
Pineapple disease
Yes (%)
34.6
86.7
63.8
56.1
53.6
72.9
54.5
70.2
35.5
Table 9: Reasons for not applying the recommended practices
Practice
Never heard Lack of practical
Lack of
of it (%)
skills(%)
capital(%)
Mulching
1.7
15.0
41.7
Application of manure
5.0
23.3
53.3
Application of soil conservation measures
3.3
31.7
53.3
Use of certified planting materials
6.7
20.0
66.7
Pest and disease control
3.3
20.0
70.0
Weed control
6.7
20.0
56.7
Crop rotation
10.0
38.3
38.3
Gapping
11.7
31.7
36.7
No
65.4
13.3
36.2
43.9
46.4
27.1
45.5
29.8
64.8
Lack of
labor (%)
41.7
18.3
11.7
6.7
6.7
16.7
13.3
20.0
Total
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
Table 10. Correlation analysis between access to knowledge and productivity of the crop
Access to knowledge and
information
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
productivity of the cane crop
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
Access to knowledge
and information
1
105
.283*
.029
105
Productivity of the cane
crop
.283*
.029
105
1
105
53.3%
60
40
20
0
35%
10%
1.7%
Very HIgh
High
Low
Very Low
Figure 5. Productivity of cane crop in Kakamega County
http://www.ijasrt.com
Email: [email protected]
2013; 3(4): 199-207
205
206
Technical Knowledge and Information Gaps among Smallholder Farmers
4. Conclusion and Recommendations
The productivity of sugarcane crop in
Kakamega County has been low and this is being
contributed by among other factors; lack of capital
and inadequate knowledge and skills regarding the
crop’s agronomy. The inadequate access to
knowledge and skills; technologies and agronomic
practices regarding cane crop production and
management is attributable to very few or no contact
with public and private extensionists who are the sole
disseminators of cane crop agronomic practices and
technologies. Additionally, the level of cane
cultivation was determined by the size of the farm.
The technical knowledge and information
gaps varied on the basis of growth stages of the crop.
Some farmers had no knowledge of the right time to
prepare their land for planting although there is
empirical evidence to show that timely planting helps
in maximizing the yields. Furthermore other farmers
did not undertake the key activities associated with
land preparation namely; clearance of vegetation,
leveling, sub-soiling, and even ploughing. However,
majority harrowed the land, dug furrows and
surveyed the land as recommended. A significant
number of the small holder farmers did not have the
knowledge and skills required for cane propagation.
Moreover, very few farmers had knowledge of how
to establish cane sett nursery. Even though suboptimal density planting results in a loss of yield due
to inefficient use of the land space, some small holder
farmers didn’t know the recommended planting
spacing for cane crop. The smallholder farmers got
planting materials from various sources namely;
milling companies KESREF, and neighbours with the
main source of sugarcane seedlings being own farm.
Hence, most of them grew uncertified cane setts and
this may have been contributed to low productivity.
Only a few farmers did not know when and how to
undertake gapping of the crop. Almost half of the
farmers did not remove tillers from their crop
although it is advisable to remove tillers as and when
they arise because they affect the growth of adjacent
stalks.
In sugarcane, weeds have been estimated to
cause 12 to 72% reduction in cane yield depending
upon the severity of infestation. The number of times
the farmers weeded their crops varied from 2 to 8
times; an indication that some farmers lacked
knowledge regarding the recommended number of
times of weeding and those who had the knowledge
lacked capital to apply the practice fully. A
significant number of farmers were not applying
organic and inorganic fertilizers because of the
aforementioned reasons. The crop was also being
attacked by a wide spectrum of pests and diseases
most of which huge losses. The most common pest
http://www.ijasrt.com
Gilbert Odilla Abura et al
was termite and the most disturbing disease was
ratoon stunting disease.
Recommendations:
In order for farmers to realize improved cane
production levels, they must access and adopt modern
technologies and information.
The County agricultural extension staff,
milling company extensionists and KESREF
technology dissemination units as well as private
sector extension should design and implement need
based training programs to address the technical
knowledge and skills gaps established by the study.
Farmer-to-farmer extension should be used
as one strategy of up-scaling and replicating methods
already in use among some farmers.
Strategies
should
be
designed
to
disseminating practices that require technical
knowledge and skills.
Mass extension methods should be used to
ensure that the information disseminated reaches as
many farmers as possible. This will address the
problem of a high extension to farmer ratio.
References
1) Amadalo, B., Jama, B., Noordin, Q., Nyasimi,
M., Place, F., Franzel, S. & Beniest, J. (2003).
Improved fallows for western Kenya: An extension
guideline. Nairobi, Kenya: World Agroforestry
Centre (ICRAF).
2) Azhar, M., Ishfaq, M., IQBAL, J and Shafi N.
M. (2007). Agronomic Performance and Juice
Quality
of
Autumn
Planted
Sugarcane
(Saccharumofficinarum L.) as affected by flat, ditch
and pit planting under different spatial arrangements.
International Journal of Agriculture & Biology 9(1):
167-169.
3) CBS. (2011). Economic Survey. Nairobi,
Kenya: Government Press.
4) FAO. (1978). Reports of the agro-ecological
zones project: World Soil Resources Rome, Italy:
Food and Agriculture Organization of United Nations
Report 48 Vols.1-4: 5-20.
5) Jaetzold, R & Schimdt, H., (1982). Farm
Management Handbook of Kenya: Natural
Conditions and Farm Management Information.
Nairobi, Kenya Ministry of Agriculture, Kenya, and
German Agency for Technical Cooperation (GTZ).
6) KARI. (1994). Strategic Plan for Cereals
(1993-2013). Nairobi, Kenya Agriculture Research
Institute.
7) Kenya Sugar Board. (2009). Kenya Sugar
Board Strategic Plan 2009. Retrieved from
http://www.kenyasugar.co.ke
8) Kenya Sugar Board. (2010). The Kenya Sugar
Industry Value Chain Analysis: Analysis of the
Production and Marketing Costs for Sugarcane and
Email: [email protected]
2013; 3(4):199-207
IJASRT in EESs, 2013; 3(4)
http://www.ijasrt.com
Sugar Related Products. Provided by the KSB
through:
http://www.kenyasugar.co.ke/index.php?option=com
_k2&view=item&layout=item&i61&Itei=184&lang=
en
9) Kenya Sugar Industry (KSI). (2009). Kenya
Sugar Industry Strategic Plan 2010 - 2014. Retrieved
from http://www.kenyasugar.co.ke.
10) KESREF ( 2009). Kenya Sugar Research
Foundation Strategic Plan 2009 - 2014. Nairobi,
KESREF.
11) Mumias Sugar Company (MSC). (2008).
Annual Report and Financial Statements for year
ended 30 June 2008.Mumias, Mumias Sugar
company.
12) Lynam, J & Hassan, R. M. (1998). A new
approach to securing sustained growth in Kenya's
maize sector. In: R.M H, editor. Maize technology
development and transfer: A GIS publication for
research planning in Kenya. Wallingford, UK: CAB
International.
13) Odenya, J. O., Wawire, N. W & Okwach, G.
O. (2007). The Sugar Industry in Kenya with Special
http://www.ijasrt.com
Reference to Smallholder Farmers. A paper presented
to the East African Sugar Development Project
Inception Meeting at Impala Hotel, Arusha on 4th – 5
th June 2007.
14) Ojiem, J. O. (2006). Exploring SocioEcological Niches for Legumes in Western Kenya
Smallholder
Farming
Systems
[Ph.D
thesis].Wageningen, The Netherlands: Wageningen
University. 35-116 p.
15) Olweny, C & Jamoza, J. (2008). Effect of
Plant Density on Seed cane Yield of Tissue Cultured
Cane Plantlets. South African Journal of Science
(2008) 81: 355 – 357.
16) Robson, C. (1993). Real World Research. A
Resource for Social Scientists and PractitionerResearchers.Oxford: Blackwell.
17) Verma, R. S. (2004). Sugarcane Projection
Technology in India.International Book Distributing
Co. Lucknow. India.
18) Wawire, N. W., Kahora, F., Wachira P. M &
Kipruto, K. B. (2006).Technology Adoption Study in
Kenya Sugar Industry. KESREF Technical Bulletin
No.1 P: 51-77.
Email: [email protected]
2013; 3(4): 199-207
207
208
Technical Knowledge and Information Gaps among Smallholder Farmers
http://www.ijasrt.com
Email: [email protected]
Gilbert Odilla Abura et al
2013; 3(4):199-207